Beware of this SCAMMER

[IanMcintosh]

BEWARE of Mark Rejniak, aka Marek Rejniak, a FRAUDSTER who “trades” with a fictitious company called “Amerex Investment Corporation” and has dealings with Abby Investment Corp. He does NOT work for the Federal Reserve, nor the CIA (with his little CIA badge…), he is not a licensed investment manager and anything else he has told you I would view with skepticism.


He has a bunch of fraudulent documents portraying himself as the High Yield Investment Project (HYIP) manager and he will tell you he works for the Federal Reserve. You can view a copy of these documents on my website, just follow the link attached.


He also works with Ms. Alicia Milner of Los Angeles and has associations with Abbey Investment Corporation that is also a highly irregular “company”.


Mark Rejniak was recently involved in a €100 million scam that was uncovered relatively early by British Police whereby they have managed to recover €88 million before it disappeared completely. The unwitting company was All Seas, run by Edward Heerema of Holland. It is a complex case of deceit and money trails through numerous banks, much like a Hollywood movie only this is real.


Mark Rejniak has defrauded myself of $240,000 in 2007 and has been stringing me along ever since. I am seeking him out now so if anyone reading this post knows of his whereabouts, please contact me. This fraud has cost me the initial $240,000, plus over $40,000 in legal fees, $130,000 in interest and I have forfeited a house. On top of this, my relationship of 21 years has collapsed following my wife’s breakdown due to the stress of this loss and its costs to us.


So be aware, Mark Rejniak, aka, Marek A. Rejniak is a fraudster and a con man and I urge anyone even remotely considering dealing with Mark Rejniak or any of his associates, to turn around and run away. Please be warned.

 

[RapidFinancial]

I'm sorry to hear of your loss.


I was once taking for $35k many years ago & it took several years to get over it. Of course I never got the money back, but once I stopped being angry about it, it was at least a load off of my mind.


I hope one day you can move on, but I do feel your pain & sympathize.


Michelle

 

[markarejniak]

In response to the alleged Claim of Ian McIntosh


Date : 10 May, 2013


Victim : Mr. Marek A. Rejniak


Cyberstalker / : Mr. Ian McIntosh (Repeat Offender)


Reference point : US FEDERAL ANTI-CYBER-STALKING LAW 47 USC SEC. 223


CONTINUOUS OFFENSES BY THE REPEAT OFFENDER TOWARDS THE VICTIM not only of copyright but of slander and liable statements all designed to do harm to the victim (The undersigned).


FOR THE MATTER OF LEGAL RECORD OF THE FOLLOWING US FEDERAL ANTI-CYBER-STALKING LAW 47 USC SEC. 223


Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include the making of false accusations or statements of fact (as in defamation), monitoring, making threats, identity theft, or gathering information that may be used to harass.


The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.


THE OFFENDER IS COMPLICIT BY WAY OF;-


(1) Harass the individual mentioned in the in the makeup of the domain name matrix.


(2) Harass the individual mentioned in the postings in the web sites.


(3) Making (allegedly) false accusations or statements of fact as in defamation within his postings.


(4) Gathering of information that may be used to harass.


Cyberstalking is different from spatial or offline stalking in that it occurs through the use of electronic communications technology such as the internet. However, it sometimes leads to it, or is accompanied by it. Both are criminal offenses Cyberstalking shares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers – online or off – are motivated by a desire to control their victims.


A cyberstalker may be an online stranger or a person whom the target knows. A cyberstalker may be anonymous and may solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target.


THE OFFENDER IS COMPLICIT BY WAY OF;-


(1) The Cyberstalker is using electronic communications technology such as the internet to carry out its activities.


(2) The Cyberstalker does in fact know the target


(3) The Cyberstalker is motivated by a desire to control their victims.


(4) The Cyberstalker is soliciting involvement of other people online who do not even know the target (In his postings);-.


Cyberstalking is a criminal offense that comes into play under state anti-stalking laws, slander laws, and harassment laws. A cyberstalking conviction can result in a restraining order, probation, or even criminal penalties against the assailant, including jail.


"Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has), with motives that are directly or indirectly traceable to the affective sphere. Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect)."


A number of key factors have been identified:


False accusations. Many Cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions.


THE OFFENDER IS COMPLICIT BY WAY OF;-


(1) Made false (Arguably) accusations (In his postings on the web sites);-


(2) Has posted false information on the websites


(3) Created their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose.


(4) Posted allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions.


Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective.


THE OFFENDER IS COMPLICIT BY WAY OF;-


(1) The Cyberstalker has been and is making attempts to contact the victims family and friends.


(2) The Cyberstalker is advertising for information on the internet (In his postings);-.


Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many Cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.


THE OFFENDER IS COMPLICIT BY WAY OF (In his postings);-


(1) The cyberstalker has and is posting the victims name, telephone numbers addresses, photograph, banking information and passport.


(2) The Cyberstalker has and is encouraging other to join his activities and pursuit.


Motive. Mental profiling of digital criminals has identified factors that motivate stalkers as: envy; pathological obsession (professional or ***ual); unemployment or failure with own job or life; intention to intimidate and cause others to feel inferior; the stalker is delusional and believes he/she "knows" the target; the stalker wants to instill fear in a person to justify his/her status; belief they can get away with it (anonymity or direct); intimidation for financial advantage or business competition; revenge over perceived or imagined rejection.


THE OFFENDER IS COMPLICIT BY WAY OF MOTIVE (In his postings);-


(1) The cyberstalker has and is using by nature of his postings intimidation for financial advantage.


(2) The cyberstalker has and is demanding money as a matter over revenge over perceived or imagined rejection.


Corporate cyberstalking. Corporate cyberstalking is when a company harasses an individual online, or an individual or group of individuals harasses an organization. Motives for corporate cyberstalking are ideological, or include a desire for financial gain or revenge.


THE OFFENDER IS COMPLICIT BY WAY OF MOTIVE (In his postings);-


(1) The cyberstalker has and is harassing the victim as well as the victims companies through its offensive postings which include a desire for financial gain or revenge.


In response to the alleged Claim of Ian McIntosh


Behaviors


Cyberstalkers find their victims by using search engines, online forums, bulletin and discussion boards, chat rooms, and more recently, through social networking sites, and media outlets known for self-publishing. They may engage in live chat harassment or flaming or they may send electronic viruses and unsolicited e-mails. Cyberstalkers may research individuals to feed their obsessions and curiosity. Conversely, the acts of Cyberstalkers may become more intense, such as repeatedly instant messaging their targets.


More commonly they will post defamatory or derogatory statements about their stalking target on web pages, message boards and in guest books designed to get a reaction or response from their victim, thereby initiating contact. In some cases, they have been known to create fake blogs in the name of the victim containing defamatory content.


THE OFFENDER IS COMPLICIT BY WAY OF MOTIVE (In his postings);-


(1) The cyberstalker has and is researching the victim and associated individuals to feed their obsessions and curiosity.


(2) The cyberstalker has and is posting defamatory or derogatory statements about their stalking target on web pages, message boards and in guest books designed to get a reaction or response from their victim.


(3) The cyberstalker has created blogs and posted comments posing as another containing defamatory content towards the victim.


When prosecuted, many stalkers have unsuccessfully attempted to justify their behavior based on their use of public forums, as opposed to direct contact. Once they get a reaction from the victim, they will typically attempt to track or follow the victim's internet activity. Classic cyberstalking behavior includes the tracing of the victim's IP address in an attempt to verify their home or place of employment.


Alaska, Florida, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and California, have incorporated electronically communicated statements as conduct constituting stalking in their anti-stalking laws.


Texas enacted the Stalking by Electronic Communications Act, 2001


Netcrime refers to criminal exploitation of the Internet Cybercrimes as: "Offences that are committed against individuals or groups of individuals with a criminal motive to intentionally harm the reputation of the victim or cause physical or mental harm to the victim directly or indirectly, using modern telecommunication networks such as Internet (Web sites, Chat rooms, emails, notice boards and groups) and mobile phones (SMS/MMS)".


THE OFFENDER IS COMPLICIT BY WAY OF MOTIVE


(1) The cyberstalker has created(Web sites, Chat rooms, emails, notice boards and groups) and mobile phones (SMS/MMS) to carry out these netcrimes.


Harassment


Whereas content may be offensive in a non-specific way, harassment directs obscenities and derogatory comments at specific individuals. Any comment that may be found derogatory or offensive is considered harassment. There are instances where committing a crime, which involves the use of a computer, can lead to an enhanced sentence.


Service Providers


You have always been approached professionally and courteously by the undersigned, no expectation is requested outside of the law and that of common decency.


The perpetrator of the offenses has been made know to you, even though that he may have his opinion which I reject completely and I have mine, and that together, will be the decision of the courts if need be to make opinion and ruling, not that of the actions clearly that of trying to create smoke and mirrors and all matters mentioned as complicit by way of motive and actions of a cyberstalker.


From the domain names to the registrations, hosting, blogs, chat rooms and social networks you are reminded of the ICANN NOTICE AND THE DMCA TAKE DOWN NOTICE and also your common adherence to prevent cyberstalking under the US FEDERAL ANTI-CYBER-STALKING LAW 47 USC SEC. 223


In full faith and confidence in your common decency.


Yours truly.


Mr. Mark A. Rejniak


The OFFENDER is fixated to the point he (arguably) cannot handle rejection, and my position regarding his actions where he failed in his contractual obligations, no one has interest in him or is claims. This is for the record only and I won't apply one more second to this time waster.


I wasted my time and that of others because of his non performing representations that caused embarrassment and expenses me to others entering a contract and not performing under the contract does not mean he can expect the work others did on his behalf to be reclaimed back. Misrepresentation is a big thing.


LIST OF OFFENDING DOMAINS AND LINKS


: MarkRejniakFraudsTerNET - Fraudster Mark Rejniak and Amerex Investment


: AmerexInvestmentCorpCOM - Fraudster Mark Rejniak and Amerex Investment


: MarkRejniakORG - Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster


: [WWWmarkrejniakCOM]Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster[/url]


: Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Log In


: [WWWmarkrejniakORG]Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster[/url]


: [WWWmarkrejniakORG/how-to-contact-me-at-no-cost]HOW TO CONTACT ME AT NO COST]


: [WWWmarkrejniakORG/contact-us]CONTACT US | Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak]


: [WWWmarkrejniakNET]


: ALL ABOVE REDIRECTING TO Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster (Repeat offenses/offender)


: [WWWmarkrejniakfraudsterORG]Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster]


: [WWWmarkrejniakfraudsterCOM]Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster]


: [WWWmarkrejniakfraudsterCOM/...-me-at-no-cost]


: [WWWmarkrejniakfraudsterCOM/contact-form]


: [WWWmarkrejniakfraudsterNET]Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster]


: ALL ABOVE REDIRECTING TO Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster (Repeat offenses/offender)


: [WWWmarekrejniakCOM]


: [WWWmarekrejniakfraudsterCOM]Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster]


: [WWWmarekrejniakfraudsterORG]


: [WWWmarekrejniakfraudsterNET]


: [WWWamerexinvestmentcorpCOM]Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster]


: ALL ABOVE REDIRECTING TO [WWWmarkrejniakfraudsterCOM]Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak Fraudster]


: Rejniak, Marek-SKR FedRes1 Rejniak, Marek-SKR FedRes1 ? Mark Rejniak aka Marek Rejniak


: WWWwebstatsdomainCOM/tags/rejniak/]


: ScamVictimsUnited.com • View topic - BEWARE of this FRAUDSTER


: Beware of this Fraudster


: Bank of Washington - Who is talking about Bank of Washington on GOOGLE-PLUS


: [WWWscamCOM/showthread.php?p=1328005]


: Search | forums-altnews-com-au


: Activity Stream - Anti-Fraud International


: Anti-Fraud International


: Mark Rejniak, aka Marek Rejniak


419 Advance Fee Fraud: May 2013


: Scam Site! Report Scams for Free! Search, Alert, and Uncover the Dirt! WhoScammedYou.com


: Mark Rejniak : -, California : WhoScammedYou


: Activity Stream - Immigration forums for visa, green card, visitors insurance, OCI and more


: Plus other new sites being made frequently.

 

[markarejniak]

May 2013 Prove Basis


Mr. Ian McIntosh need ONLY and ONLY provide me a copy of a legitimate deposit of what he claimed he had access to from his funding/funder arrangements for CREDIT, to be pledged against an financial instrument that he engaged me to arrange.


"Produce the specific existence of this founding BASIS OF FACT that is the funding and funder's evidence of CREDIT and prove once and for all, that, Ian McIntosh had at ANY time, on the day of signing the contract, or shortly thereafter, (let's say even allowing an additional SIX months) if it ever existed.


I don't want to see a scan copy of some bank statement blanked out belonging to some non descript owner, but genuine funds of a FUNDER THAT CAN BE VERIFIED OFFICIALLY ON A BANK TO BANK BASIS PROFESSIONALLY that was available at that time".


Caution: We do understand and would never ask anyone to post private and confidential information of someone's bank account statement or bank account number so DO NOT do that. (Even though you have regarding me).


Post your SIGNED STATEMENT OF FACT UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, WITNESSED BY A PUBLIC NOTARY IN YOUR CITY OF PERTH WESTERN AUSTRALIA stating that you have shown the physical evidence of bank statement as (then) a ready and willing financial ability to perform consistent in terms that you signed under contract to do (at that time or even allowing an additional SIX months)). Further that the evidence of these funds are genuine and are able to be confirmed on a official bank to bank basis by any responsible bank or authority subject to your liability of perjury.


WITHOUT that BASIS being evidenced, he (Ian McIntosh) misrepresented himself in contract, wasted his money, our time and our additional costs. Many institutions are obviously willing to provide financial instruments once the Funders/Credit is PROVEN. WITHOUT THAT at the time of signing the contract with me or shortly thereafter, he thereby misrepresented himself having no BASIS, and possibly hoping I or the institutions would offer or confirm an instrument available to him subject to cash/credit backing. This is regarded by the institutions and any responsible professional as suspicious activity.


This would have been be solicitation! The document would have been used to find funders! with then his agreements and promises to them, that I would have possibly never had known about, especially what liabilities would have been involved for him to get it, and in a way associate me to it. With this suspicious activity, the Institutions would not offer him anything and I would not further associate in way of open dialog.


PROVE YOUR BASIS AS MENTIONED. DON'T CLOUD THE SUBJECT WITH YOUR OFF TARGET REPLY 'EITHER YOU HAD THE FINANCIAL POSITION IN PLACE READY OR YOU DIDN'T'. The Challenge is there, Otherwise I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself (you Ian McIntosh), we all wait your simple EVIDENCE


a) Your Statement under the penalty of perjury,


b) your assurance you will hand over a copy of the alleged funds to our the responsible institution or authorities to confirm officially it's genuineness' (and stand by the claim to say it is genuine and not say that you did not know after).


Since you (Ian McIntosh) appear to be so sure and readily able to make myriads of posting with the technical network of IT people in the Philippines we would expect this shortly. The BASIS of these claims is void of logic, suspicious activity, and is constant cyber dribble of smoke and mirrors from him.


Regardless of the safe harbour statement made by one of the blog participants safe harbour is not that safe when intentions are let's say "dark". He now breaches ICANN regulations, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and yes now he cyber stalks. (say what you want but don't break the law).


Finally in regards my email address, Ian McIntosh has it, and it has never been turned off, additionally my emails to the ISP providers and others are copied by them to Ian McIntosh. I don't hide behind anything. I don't answer because of the suspicious activity that went on and don't want any further involvement, I will not play his game. This blog is only for setting the matter straight. It is now his business after he has been making so many claims, to prove he had a basis of evidence to be an investor at that time.


I know the outcome already, but all readers can wait for the next story that will come by Ian McIntosh probably avoiding the exact facts required. It is interesting that he will post the Letter of Understanding yet hasn't as yet or cant post any evidence of his ability to show what he was to do in that Understanding?


Marek A. Rejniak


In response to the alleged Claim of Ian McIntosh


Be reminded


WITHOUT that BASIS being evidenced, he (Ian McIntosh) misrepresented himself in contract, wasted his money, our time and our additional costs. Many institutions are obviously willing to provide financial instruments once the Funders/Credit is PROVEN. WITHOUT THAT at the time of signing the contract with me or shortly thereafter, he thereby misrepresented himself having no BASIS, and possibly hoping I or the institutions would offer or confirm an instrument available to him subject to cash/credit backing. This is regarded by the institutions and any responsible professional as suspicious activity.


This would have been be solicitation! The document would have been possibly used to find funders! with then his agreements and promises to them, that I would have possibly never had known about, especially what liabilities would have been involved for him to get it, and in a way associate me to it. With this suspicious activity,the Institutions would not offer him anything and I would not further associate in way of open dialog and this position remains the same today, unless he can show evidence of a legitimate funder with genuine funds during that time and up six months after he signed a contract with me.


Marek A. Rejniak

 

[markarejniak]

In response to the alleged Claim of Ian McIntosh


May 2013 Prove Basis


Duplicated posting to be deleted...

 

[markarejniak]

In response to the alleged Claim of Ian McIntosh


1): Within those procedures of the Letter of Understanding, the clear and defined escalation process from the point of the initial detection to disposition of the investigation by the Marek A. Rejniak identified the characteristics of the suspicious activity, and on evaluating the activity, the decision was then based on unique facts and circumstances.


2): The phrase "initial detection" should not be interpreted as meaning the moment a envisaged transaction is highlighted for review. There are a variety of legitimate transactions that could raise a red flag simply because they are inconsistent with the Letter of Understanding.


3): The findings of Marek Rejniak showed that the counter party (Ian McIntosh) was defective in its responsibilities under the Letter of Understanding to provide investment funder/Credit himself, or though his other arrangements and being both that outside of the responsibility of Marek Rejniak.


4): The initial discovery of information, such as reports or communicated information, and even the lack of information from the counter party to the 'letter of understanding', may flag the transaction; however, this would not have been considered as initial detection of potential suspicious activity. The period did not begin until an appropriate review was conducted and a determination was made that the transaction under review is “suspicious” within the meaning.


5. That Marek Rejniak allowed fair and reasonable time up to six months to allow the counter party to perform (Ian McIntosh).


6): The counter party (Ian McIntosh) was provided a (International Chamber of Commerce) ICC 500/600 standard regulated bank text format, by Marek Rejniak. This was a draft of the expected confirmation of the bank instrument clearly identifying that the standard in the documents stated as its prime and main position, (Quote) "For value received.......". It was by this document that it clearly showed a firm position by any issuing institution under the ICC 500/600 for documentary instruments. This was in a form a reaffirmation of the provision in the Letter of Understanding that Ian McIntosh was expected to provide "For value received.......". as the funders/credit, against this requested instrument.


7): The “suspicious” activity identified that the counter party (Ian McIntosh) acted suspiciously while after being made aware of this mentioned fact, he continued in making communications regarding wishing to receive confirmation from an financial institution via Marek Rejniak. Marek Rejniak was in effect being requested and demanded of, for the commitment to provide a bank instrument 'ahead' of the counter party (Ian McIntosh) evidencing any funders/credit, to make the bank instrument possible.


8): It became clear to Marek Rejniak that the counter party (Ian McIntosh) had no available financial position to evidence and provide any funders/credit based at any 'receiving' institution, for the purpose to evidence to any 'issuing' institution where Marek Rejniak was engaged to provide comfort to (that was based on the representation by the counter party Ian McIntosh). No funder/credit was introduced and Ian McIntosh was in default.


9): The continued requests and demands of Ian McIntosh to Marek Rejniak to produce a commitment that was implausible under the general rules of the financial institutions non solicitation policies, as well as other more serious aspects in regards to producing commitment documents (letter of understanding) for obtaining credit without evidence of security, affirmed the “suspicious” activity.


10): This coupled with the clear understanding of the provided draft of the ICC 500/600 for documentary instruments "For value received.......". confirmed to Marek Rejniak that the requests and demands were highly inappropriate “suspicious” activity and were in fact demands to get Marek Rejniak to solicit on the counter parties behalf(Ian McIntosh). This was not entertained further by Marek Rejniak or any institutions he had approached originally in preparation and good faith.


(11): Marek Rejniak was engaged to arrange and make ready subject to the Counter party (Ian McIntosh) evidencing the funders/credit. He did that though approaching the institutions in preparation and processing for the counter party to perform, this included travel, time and costs in which he was fully expected to do under contract 'Letter of Understanding'.


12): Ultimately, the decision to maintain or close a contract or 'letter of understanding' was made by the respective party (Marek Rejniak) in accordance with not participating in "suspicious activity" and thereon he closed and withdrew from any dealings it had with the institutions regarding Ian McIntosh, to ensure he (Marek Rejniak) was not involved in the "suspicious activity" and contractual "misrepresentation" that this counter party (Ian McIntosh) had made regarding his abilities. Whereby Ian McIntosh makes demands for the return of funds that were expended on his request, and covered in contract terms in the preparation and processing, on the basis of his own performance to perform.


(a) Ian McIntosh did not request a immediate cancellation of the contract and request a negotiation on the return of funds knowing he would not perform (in a timely manner).


(b) Ian McIntosh allowed and mislead Marek Rejniak to go ahead and make the preparations and process, allowing Rejniak to believe Ian McIntosh had the ability to perform.


© Ian McIntosh was given a standard third party standardized document being the text under ICC 500/600 for documentary instruments that made exceptionally clear what inferred to was in the Letter of Understanding that a Funder/Credit had to be produced. In both of these documents mentioned Ian McIntosh cannot claim he was unaware of his responsibilities.


(d) Ian McIntosh still continued and allowed Marek Rejniak to go ahead with preparations and process even though Rejniak had made it clear he was in need of evidence of the Funder/Credit and was waiting.


(e) Ian McIntosh thereafter continued to misrepresent himself, now at a level of possibly knowingly trying to cause Marek Rejniak to go ahead with and preparations and processing that would only draw Marek Rejniak into potential trouble at the financial institutions. This appeared to be in a form of a calculated risk that McIntosh would get for his ultimate benefit, a letter from an institution that would be "Subject cash backing (Credit availability) to be used for his advantage to use it as leverage towards a funders/ credit.


(f) Ian McIntosh received up to six months and more but did not request a cancellation of the contract instead he imposed pressure, demands and threats toward Marek Rejniak to somehow continue, which responsibly he did not.


(g) Ian McIntosh mounted and continues harassment, cyber stalking and defamation and to the basis of extortion to recover funds he contracted for payment towards preparation and processing, subject to himself providing a funders/Credit in which he failed. Further the funds paid were in fact used as required in the Letter of Understanding. The harassment and defamation openly published and continuing became part of his terms of conditions for the extortive return of funds, based on his own inabilities, misrepresentation and clearly is "suspicious activity". It is possible that this can be specifically brought as civil and a criminal act.


(h) Ian McIntosh continued in "suspicious activity" by making false statements publically and to government authorities whereby it remains to be undertaken that legitimate complaint for the making of false statement is perused. It is possible that this can be specifically brought as a criminal act.


(i) Ian McIntosh by his own admission and actions in public forums did knowingly publish government issued property belonging to that government and the bearer (passport) and has additionally digitally tampered with government property which is copyright under joint ownership of the government and bearer by doing what is called cut and paste from a copyright document that identifies Marek Rejniak. (18 USC 1544 Misuse of Passport) (18 USC 1028A Aggravated Identity Theft). It is possible that this can be specifically brought as a criminal act.


(j) Ian McIntosh by his own admission and actions in public forums did knowingly publish information on the bank details of Marek Rejniak who have the right to file a tort/civil cause of action under an invasion of privacy; and may request damages resulting from the publication. It is possible that this can be specifically brought as a criminal act.


(k) Ian McIntosh has been advised by ISP providers of complaints made being that either of, alleged copyright, or criminal matters that are being conducted by him on his registered web sites, and his posting into third party blogs. Ian McIntosh cannot avoid the matter of 'knowingly conducting a criminal act' as mentioned previously. Additionally the combined postings of passport details including signature, passport photo, bank account information, private residential information in one or multiple sites, can and may be collected criminal parties for misuse and criminal acts, to which Ian McIntosh is already fully advised , aware and liable. Including the costs of the victim for reissuing of all private and confidential identity documents and other necessary needs to negate what is published in terms of maintaining a normal persons privacy.


(l) Ian McIntosh somehow in his perception of the basic rule of law has made complaints and appeals to financial authorities and institutions, with the same information in the format he has portrayed on his sites. This includes advising the authorities to read his claims on the sites he has registered without any rational that his actions that are themselves illegal in publishing the specimens of legitimate privacy. His demands to the authorities show the immature mindset of an individual whilst hoping to be taken seriously. It is possible that this can also be specifically brought as a criminal act.


(m) These facts considered do show by Ian McIntosh's action, knowledge and nature, that he has provided a genuine due course for ceasing this contact the 'Letter of Understanding', any further dealings communication and information immediately after the determination of "suspicious activity" was made by Marek Rejniak.

 

[zonez]

Drama..